Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 29 Jun 2004 13:41:43 -0700 | Subject | Re: Updated Wireless Extension patches | From | Jean Tourrilhes <> |
| |
On Tue, Jun 29, 2004 at 03:45:25PM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote: > > Regardless of our recent discussions, I do want to emphasize that I wish > to maintain the current WE, and its backwards compatibility, for the > current 2.6.x stable series at the very least. > > So please don't be discouraged from submitting WE patches...
No problem Jeff ;-) Because of my wife, I have learned to compromise (I just wish she had learned that as well). I already told you that the actual delivery mechanism to the driver doesn't matter to me, what matter to me is the vocabulary and gramar of the API. And also I want to satisfy the need of both driver authors and userspace. So, we are aiming for the same goal, just having slightly different methods. I plan to submit WE-17 to you somewhat soon, because Jouni needs it, and I've postponed it far too much. There is actually one change in WE-17 that you should appreciate. WPA and RtNetlink will go when they are ready, for WPA it depends on Jouni, for RtNetlink on me.
> Jeff > > > P.S. do associated userland wireless-tools patches exist to make use of > netlink? i.e. how have you been testing it?
Good catch ;-) There are some advantage to RtNetlink. Unfortunately, simplicity is not one. Dealing with RtNetlink is a lot of work compared to ioctl, as you may discover if you migrate your API to it. I have a pretty simple test app. I'm working on a version of iwlib that would go through RtNetlink, that would enable the full Wireless Tools to use RtNetlink. I'll try to release that soon.
Have fun...
Jean
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |